Skype

Google Chat/Jabber

AIM

MSN

ICQ

Yahoo

Name

School

Biography

Location

Interests

Occupation

Did Planet Debate let you down this weekend?
Does Planet Debate let you down every weekend?
Are you disappointed when you pay for a 90 page file and over 50 of the pages are just Latin American Relations impacts that someone copy & pasted from last year's campfiles (that you don't even really have an internal link to)?
Well, here at debatePTX we promise not to let you down (...well... at least this weekend).
TOMORROW, Friday January 16th, We will be releasing a new file with plenty of updates, thumpers, aff answers, and even a new scenario or two.
If Planet Debate has left you SOL this weekend, or if you just want a high-quality file of recent evidence for your first tournament of the New Year, make sure to sign up below to be alerted when our file comes out tomorrow AM.
Sign up here: http://tinyurl.com/Jan16PTXsignup

ok, so this is probably a supes stupid question, but would a non-unique da with an alternative (framed like a K) be legit? Or would you just have to concede presumption, lay out impacts of the squo and plan, and run a cp?

I made a bet with someone on my squad that there was not a chance in hell that they could legitimately win a round where they could only go for a states cp/federalism da combo. Will I lose my money? why?

What is the riders da? I've heard it's one of the most hated arguments, like kind of on the same level as aspec. I've never seen it before. Can someone explain what is? I'm just curious
EDIT: i figured it out. I see why it's hated so much. But is it really that different from agenda politics in terms of what it does? I guess agenda politics is a lot more debatable on the uq and link questions

Did Planet Debate let you down this weekend?
Does Planet Debate let you down every weekend?
Are you disappointed when you pay for a 90 page file and over 50 of the pages are just Latin American Relations impacts that someone copy & pasted from last year's campfiles (that you don't even really have an internal link to)?
Well, here at debatePTX we promise not to let you down (...well... at least this weekend).
TOMORROW, Friday January 16th, We will be releasing a new file with plenty of updates, thumpers, aff answers, and even a new scenario or two.
If Planet Debate has left you SOL this weekend, or if you just want a high-quality file of recent evidence for your first tournament of the New Year, make sure to sign up below to be alerted when our file comes out tomorrow AM.
Sign up here: http://tinyurl.com/Jan16PTXsignup

Whenever I read online about Politics DAs, I always find that people bash on them for some reason, and from what I understand, Politics DAs are somehow different than other DAs.
How are Poltics DAs different from "regular" DAs, and why are they sometimes looked down upon?
Also, I came across this page, and I don't understand the rationale behind these reasons:
http://learnpolicydebate.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/reasons-why-the-politics-disadvantage-is-the-worst-disadvantage-in-policy-debate/
If anybody could help me understand, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

I have a handwritten 1NC Shell, it would just be in case you ever get in a pinch..
It has a K I handwrote, w/ updated cards. I'm not sure what to call it but it's combinations of Dodds and Zizek.
I have a CP, DA
The DA is critical and has an impact of racism and the cp solves for it. There are a few answers to perm on the cp and an alt impact for the DA in the file.
Its a total of about 45 pages. Pm for more detailed descriptions.
Open for really anything trading wise. Just trying to expand all of my files.
***Also have a good file of zizek evidence

So I'm a relatively new debater with a fair amount of experience in basic policy theory, and this past week we came up against a team that used four or five different government agencies to pass their solvency, enforce it, and be the administration for it. (they used the Department of Justice, Bureau of Asian Affairs, Department of Commerece, and Department of Treasury, as well as D.O.D.) Is there a tangible disadvantage to this, or is it just something that's not easy to attack?

Sorry for all my questions. Thanks so much for your answers to these posts -- they've been tremendously helpful.
I've been reading a lot about realism and the threat-con K recently, and I'm realizing that I don't understand what makes a critique a critique.
Here's my understanding of how a threat-con K typically works:
A. Link: realism bad because you create enemies when you call them enemies (self-fulfilling prophecies). E.g. moving troops near a supposed adversary turns them into an adversary even if they previously weren't because they have to act defensively.
B. Impact: everyone dies.
C. Alternative: stop viewing countries as categorically "good" or "bad" -- remove "ally" and "enemy" labels.
Here's what I don't get...
How is that not just a disadvantage or a counterplan?
Can't I achieve the same thing by saying:
Disad: calling X country an enemy turns them into an enemy when they're actually not one, which links to everyone dying.
I read the following in William Bennett's 1996 Rostrum article "An Introduction to the 'Kritik'":
But how do you divorce assumptions and policy implications? In a K, we care about the assumption only because of its impact (isn't the format of a K supposed to be link/impact/alternative?)... so how can we say that a K is only about core assumptions?
And by saying that a K doesn't assume the burdens of a DA, isn't that just trying to be lazy about writing what's actually a DA?
Thanks in advance for clarifying. It's a big help.

I'm relatively new to Policy Debate, and at a tournament last weekend there was this person who went Maverick and ran a thing called "whiteout" or an extinction impact turn.
Their AC was a plan that baited the Negative to run a disad with an extinction impact, but then instead of refuting the disad they'd impact turn it, claiming that "extinction was good because life is suffering."
Also, their NC was composed of a japan disad of the affirmative plan that yielded an extinction impact 100 or so years in the future, followed by a counterplan that would cause extinction "almost immediately." They then ran the same "extinction good because life is suffering" evidence and claimed that they outweighed on timeframe.
Although this sounds odd, both the AC tactic of turning extinction and the extinction timeframe argument did well in several rounds and left my partner and I very confused.
Does anybody have cards or evidence they could share regarding "extinction good" or an extinction impact turn?
I also heard there's some specific philosopher associated with this idea.
Thanks

What ground will the neg have for next year's education resolution? I know that there's a lot of ground for kritiks, but what about regular impacts, disadvantages, and counterplans? Is next year's topic debatable in an area that has mainly stock issues judges?

There's been some talk of scotland seceding from the UK:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/03/05/286126493/independent-scotland-heres-a-primer-on-upcoming-secession-vote
So how do you make this into a disad? I mean there is a lot of lit about how if scotland where to do this it would destabilize the UK and the EU so there is definitely impact. But what would the link be? US-UK relations?